Gasparino Bashes Tavakoli Back, Provides Goldman's Side Of Story "Because That's What He Does" After "Being Tough On Them"

In what will likely be the flame war de jour for at least the next 24 hours, Gasparino responds to Tavakoli via Dealbreaker.

"I generally don't respond to people who don't matter on Wall Street.
But any rational, sane person who hasn't been either hitting the bottle
or smoking a joint would watch what I said about Goldman Sachs and come
away with two things. 1) I am very tough on them-- they always complain about what I say.
and 2) In the so-called 'caving' clip I was letting them give their
side of the story because that's what journalists do. If someone named
Janet thinks I'm selling out, she's entitled to her opinion, which I
hate to break it to her, really doesn't matter.

Zero Hedge doesn't want to get in the middle of this, but would like to inquire just what question was it that Charlie had posed to Lucas that was tough on Goldman? Was Charlie specifically inquiring about Goldman's provisioning of liquidity? When is the last time that Charlie even uttered the word liquidity on air, at least when it did not involve vodka? Is Charlie aware that Goldman dominates over 50% of NYSE's principal-based program trading? But like I said, we are not getting involved in this one.

Perhaps Charlie should have expressed addititional, perhaps thought-provoking, questions after providing GS an opportunity to have their say on the squawk.

It appears either (a) Charlie wasn't given the time to respond to GS statements, per CNBC producer directives; (b) Charlie had incentive to report Goldman's side-- and only Goldman's side of the story; or (c) Charlie isn't capable of rational thought and doesn't bother asking question after putting 1 and 1 together.

I cannot see how any of the above places Charlie in a positive light... but my bet is Choice A.

I generally do not respond to networks that average 190,000 viewers a day in a country of 306 million, or to networks owned by a company on the public dole, but any journalist who hasn't been on the bottle....oops, never mind Charlie.

Charlie, what is your buddy Dick Fuld up to these days? Asking him some tough questions may have got you more than, 'we are going to skullF*** the shorts'. Thanks for the info on that one.

"But any rational, sane person who hasn't been either hitting the bottle or smoking a joint would watch what I said about Goldman Sachs and come away with two things. 1) I am very tough on them-- they always complain about what I say"

I guess that means I'll have to tell the wife I am insane, and I hit the bottle, and smoked a joint this morning. I love when people start their arguments by, "Any sane or rational person believes...". It really demonstrates who has facts and who relies solely on hyperbole and emotion.

Anyone with insider connections to Wall Street's elite is only useful as a pawn. If they were to be a true news reporter and ask tough questions and report what the source DIDN'T want said would be cut off. Case in point, Steve LIESman - he is a mouthpiece for the gov't. He doesn't think, he just says what they want him to say. That is why he gets all the scoops.

Interesting thing. The teleprompter readers on CNBC, when they do have an "original" thought, usually take aim at "some government bureaucrat", and then they go on to espouse their undying belief in free markets. In particular they champion the "autonomy" of the Fed, that public-private corporation that prints our money, and prints our money, and prints our money...

Oddly, they have no problem with "some government bureaucrat" bailing out their parent company at the taxpayer expense, or bailing out Goldman, JPM, AIG, FNM, FRE, BAC, MER, WFC, STI, C, GM, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps if any of them earned enough to pay some real money in taxes, their views might change. Without those "government bureaucrats", they'd all be firing resumes off to everyone from al Jazeera to Ziff Publishing.

You see, Blankenstein needed to explain to Charlie that GS are just a bunch of market makers adding liquidity to the marketplace on behalf of all of us -- benevolently done in order to enhance an efficient market of course. As for Tavakoli, even Buffett knows she's an insane drunken pothead that can't spell CDO.